[pclayton]

Vul vs not at IMP pairs

♠AK7xx, ♥AQ, ♦QJ, ♣7xxx

Opps are silent. You open 1♠ as dealer and pard raises to 2♠. The only agreement you have is Bergen, so pard probably has three pieces for the raise.

Now what?

[Echognome]

I'm a passer based on the style I play. However, I know with the "constructive" 2♠ bid there are going some hands where game is going to make. I'm more worried about going down at the 3 level than making game though to be honest.

[inquiry]

7 loser IF AQ of hearts is zero losers, 8 losers if it is one. Pass... painless

[mikeh]

Jlall, on Jan 3 2007, 06:03 PM, said:

I'll fast pass. This hand is horrible. Even vul at imps.

agreed. the concept of 'in - out' valuation comes into play here, if you are inclined to bid. You have more than enough hcp to move, but they are very poorly placed: out of your long suits, where they could have helped establish small card winners, and in your short suits, where they stand alone. Make it AKxxx AQ xx QJxx and this is an entirely different hand.

The LTC also tells you that you must downgrade this hand to minimum opener status. Will I miss some games? Of course I will... will I miss many...no.... and will I turn a plus into a minus by bidding? Frequently.

[kenrexford]

This is far from as obvious as it seems from reading the posts so far, if you use constructive raises. It of course depends upon your definition of a "constructive raise."

I assume that a "constructive raise" indicates an expectation of three cover cards. So, expecting a distribution that approaches, on average, 3442 pattern, I add in three cards that would be considered cover cards, and then imagine the play and my trick sources for each.

By rough calculations, I found that, of 20 combinations of three likely covers cards (♠Q, ♥K, ♦A, ♦K, ♣A, ♣K):

4 contracts seemed like they will make
7 contracts seemed 50-50 (on a hook), not including stray jacks or length
5 contracts seemed hopeless at 4 but making at 3.
4 contracts seemed headed for only eight tricks.

So, again using rough math, maybe 80% of game tries are safe, with 15 of 22 game contracts making if you can always avoid game on the no-hope deals. If you always bid game, 7.5 of 16 contracts will succeed.

If you were 100% in having partner accept with the right hands, you would seem to stop safely at the three level 5 times, score a game 7.5 times, and suffer a set 7.5 times. Thus, a perfect game try seems to be a 50-50 venture, a good bet at IMP's.

But, it seems like moving toward game only makes sense with this hand IF you could decipher from partner the location of his three cover cards before bypassing the three-level, meaning a capacity to actually stop when game is hopeless (or the three-level was even hopeless).

The majority of "bad holdings" all come when partner has the club King as one of his covers, strangely. This is even the case with club Ace-King.

I have no methods that ask partner to bid game unless he has the King of Clubs. So, I pass 2♠.

[pbleighton]

Ken, that's a lot of thinking to pass with a hand which has the playing strength of an average(?) 5332 15 count.

I don't think it's close.

Peter

[Winstonm]

I'm not certain but think I prefer a 1N opening with this hand - although the QJ are marginal the hand surely is worth 14 1/2-15 and I can get it off my chest in 1 bid instead of guessing what to do over 2S.

[the hog]

Having opened 1S, and I am inclined to agree with Winston here, I would pass without a qualm.

[pclayton]

I passed and incurred the wrath of my partner who chose to make a single raise on ♠T9x ♥KJxxx ♦xx ♣AQ9.

I thought he has a clear 3 card limit raise.

If I'm making a move, I think 2N is the intelligent probe. I'm not so much concerned about missing 4♠, but 3N may be possible on power, with a flat 9 for instance.

I considered a 1N opening, but its offbeat with a 5224 and a 5 card major. I don't have a rebid problem over the likely 1N either.

[mikeh]

pclayton, on Jan 4 2007, 12:27 AM, said:

I passed and incurred the wrath of my partner who chose to make a single raise on ♠T9x ♥KJxxx ♦xx ♣AQ9.

I thought he has a clear 3 card limit raise.

In my experience (including my own behaviour, unfortunately) partners who exhibit displeasure after your pass are probably reacting to their own subconsciously recognized error: your partner must have known that 2♠ was, at a minimum, a 'conservative' call, and that his choice might result in a missed game. When it did, he unfortunately transferred to you his reaction to his own error. A common, human, but 'wrong' reaction, and one he should learn to overcome.

[Codo]

Your pd bid his hand well - if he had a king or an ace less.
10 prime hard card points, a nice 5card suit and a shortness. This is closer to a game force then to a 2 Spade bid and a clear limit raise.

[the hog]

mikeh, on Jan 4 2007, 03:55 PM, said:

pclayton, on Jan 4 2007, 12:27 AM, said:

I passed and incurred the wrath of my partner who chose to make a single raise on ♠T9x ♥KJxxx ♦xx ♣AQ9.

I thought he has a clear 3 card limit raise.

In my experience (including my own behaviour, unfortunately) partners who exhibit displeasure after your pass are probably reacting to their own subconsciously recognized error: your partner must have known that 2♠ was, at a minimum, a 'conservative' call, and that his choice might result in a missed game. When it did, he unfortunately transferred to you his reaction to his own error. A common, human, but 'wrong' reaction, and one he should learn to overcome.

Your partner was conservative but not unreasonably so, Phil. Mike's comments are an accurate reflection and many times when I have "had a go" at partner it is because I made a mistake and knew it and wanted to transfer the blame.
Do you guys use the expression "had a go" by the way?

[dake50]

Pass---if you ever intend to punish opps for reopening, this is prime example.

[FrancesHinden]

I'm missing something.
Partner has a nice 10-count, and we are looking at a spade contract with

109x
KJxxx
xx
AQ9

opposite

AKxxx
AQ
QJ
xxxx

Why do you want to be in game? (other than 'because it makes' I assume!) It seems to need the club finesse as a minimum, and even then it's not necessarily making (a nice helpful start such as club lead, Queen, low doesn't ensure 10 tricks).

Partner has a hand that is marginal between a 3-card limit raise and a constructive raise. I think you are being a bit over-the-top to say it's close to a game force.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

I want to invite, and it seems, that 2NT
is my best chance to do that.

In case he passes, ... well I have a fair
chance to survive.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

pclayton, on Jan 4 2007, 12:27 AM, said:

I passed and incurred the wrath of my partner who chose to make a single raise on ♠T9x ♥KJxxx ♦xx ♣AQ9.

I thought he has a clear 3 card limit raise.
<snip>

Hi,

if your partner plays Bergen together
with a forcing NT, he has a normal 2S
raise, ok it is a tad too strong for a
constructive 2S raise, and forcing NT was
not agreed, but who knows, what
"Bergen" means for your partner.

And he may have had a problem finding
a bid, since in his style 3C / 3D may
promise 4 card support.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[pclayton]

FrancesHinden, on Jan 4 2007, 09:02 AM, said:

I'm missing something.
Partner has a nice 10-count, and we are looking at a spade contract with

109x
KJxxx
xx
AQ9

opposite

AKxxx
AQ
QJ
xxxx

Why do you want to be in game? (other than 'because it makes' I assume!) It seems to need the club finesse as a minimum, and even then it's not necessarily making (a nice helpful start such as club lead, Queen, low doesn't ensure 10 tricks).

Partner has a hand that is marginal between a 3-card limit raise and a constructive raise. I think you are being a bit over-the-top to say it's close to a game force.

I think game is reasonable at IMPs, but with the defensive variations, its hard to peg what its chances are.

At the table, I received the ♣J lead. I popped Ace, tried two trump (they split) and tried hearts (3-3, of course LOL). I took two pitches and they cashed the ♣K (LHO led from KJTx; can this hand be any friendlier?); making 5.

On a heart lead, I play along similar lines. Only a diamond lead opens me up for likely failure. The worst scenario is they cash two diamonds ending on LHO who fires a club. I have to hook. If it loses I'm in big trouble, but I can still make on a miracle layout (3-3 hearts, ♠8x in LHO). If the club wins, all I need are 3-2 trump and hearts no worse than 4-2.

If RHO wins the 2nd diamond, I have the option of testing hearts before committing to the club hook.

[awm]

I think this depends a lot on style. There are certainly hands partner could hold where game makes. Basically:

(1) If 2♠ is constructive, showing 8-10 or thereabouts, I think it is right to make a game try. It is not hard to construct hands in this range where game makes, and the three-level will usually be safe.

(2) If 2♠ is aggressive, and partner would make a 3-card limit raise with all tens and some nice nines, then pass is clear.

(3) If 2♠ is wide-ranging and partner could have something like 5-10 points, then pass is probably best. While you will occasionally miss a game opposite a "good maximum" you don't want to be at the three-level opposite the bottom end of the raise, and it will be difficult to stay out of game when partner has a "bad maximum" for such a wide range after a game try.

While it may not seem that way from this post, (3) is actually my preferred style.

[pclayton]

awm, on Jan 4 2007, 11:25 AM, said:

I think this depends a lot on style. There are certainly hands partner could hold where game makes. Basically:

(1) If 2♠ is constructive, showing 8-10 or thereabouts, I think it is right to make a game try. It is not hard to construct hands in this range where game makes, and the three-level will usually be safe.

(2) If 2♠ is aggressive, and partner would make a 3-card limit raise with all tens and some nice nines, then pass is clear.

(3) If 2♠ is wide-ranging and partner could have something like 5-10 points, then pass is probably best. While you will occasionally miss a game opposite a "good maximum" you don't want to be at the three-level opposite the bottom end of the raise, and it will be difficult to stay out of game when partner has a "bad maximum" for such a wide range after a game try.

While it may not seem that way from this post, (3) is actually my preferred style.

My style is to bid a forcing NT with 4-5 counts and yukky 6's. Normal 6's to 8's are single raises.

Super pure 8's with shortness; xxx, Axx, x, Axxxx are limit raises. 9's with 3 cover cards (not counting shortness) are limit raises. 10's are usually limit raises.

A rare 10 count is downgraded: xxx, QJxx, AQx, Jxx.